If we carry on as we are there is going to be more plastic in the sea than fish!

To the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Michael Gove: The UK throws away 2.5 billion takeaway coffee cups every year, but sadly less than 1% get recycled. The treasury’s proposal to introduce the 25p latte levy will only pass the buck onto consumers. It’s not fair that consumers have to pay the price, when companies can do more to fix the problem. Big brands like Starbucks, Costa and Nero need to clean up their act and introduce recyclable alternatives, as sustainable solutions already exist! We want legislative change to enforce the use of eco alternatives by 2020.

Trail hunting involves laying a trail of concentrated fox urine for a pack of hounds to follow. They are trained to ONLY follow fox scent when they could so easily be trained to follow the smell of fruit, drugs, biscuits or anything else. So, it should not come as a shock when the pack follows the scent of a real fox and kills it. This is still legal in the UK and goes on throughout the country. As a result, hundreds of foxes are still chased and killed for pleasure each year in the UK. There is no place in modern society to kill just for pleasure and members of the National Trust are unwittingly supporting this activity. There are incidents where pets are also killed 'by accident' and hunts refuse to trail hunt with dogs muzzled to avoid 'collateral damage'. The National Trust should be the most respected Guardians of the countryside and represent the views of its members. It should not be an organisation that promotes cruelty and killing for the pleasure of a tiny minority. We would ask the Board of the National Trust to ban all trail hunting on their land. NOTE: it is easy to stop inhumane suffering and 'accidental' death: LET'S CLOSE THIS LOOPHOLE.

To keep a balance for all who live or use the environment. Also to protect more those species that are on the endanger list from extinction and full information has to be giving to justify why species that are protected have to killed. So that we in the future are not asking questions why species that are still depleting partly due to licenses being issues and also toughen up the laws on those who kill protected species illegally.

This is especially important as the Scottish Natural Heritage's job, as most see it, are there to protect wildlife and birds. Not give licences to destroy them The RSPB have some of these birds on their red list "A number of our garden birds like house sparrows, starlings and song thrushes have been on the red list for a while; this time around we see the addition of mistle thrushes. Read more at https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/uk-conservation-status-explained/#CXFzreJo5j74dJGl.99" So to actual issue licences to destroy these very birds is ridiculous! Please sign and make them aware of our thoughts and feelings on this subject

Grampound has had to endure speeding motorists for far too long in its 30mph speed limit. There have been many incidents of near misses between vehicles and pedestrians trying to cross the road and it's only a matter of time before there is a fatality. The noise and air pollution produced by vehicles speeding through the village has become unbearable. Residents conducted their own Traffic Monitoring Survey and a third to a half of all vehicles counted were speeding with HGV's and Motorcyclists offending the most. A mother and baby very nearly became fatalities in January 2018 when a speeding motorist left the road in the centre of Grampound, shattering bollards, mounting the pavement and crashing into a residents wall before spinning around in the opposite direction and coming to a halt. The Mother and baby sometimes walk down that side of the road, but fortunately that day she crossed the road and walked on the opposite side and witnessed the horror unfold before her eyes, She quickly realised what could have happened and was badly shaken up by the experience. We have over 10,000 vehicles pass through the village on a daily basis and it's only a matter of time before someone becomes a statistic and this is exactly what we want to avoid at all costs. According to UK Motorists.com, Speed cameras can only be located in places where there is a history of serious accidents, or evidence of a speeding problem, or where a local community has requested them. We don't just request them, we demand them.

Making it compulsory for companies to have to receive their packaging back would change the waste and pollution problem faster - as they would be held accountable for what they are selling and how they are selling to the public. It would force them to make important changes internally to tackle the waste and pollution crisis. They would also potentially be able to offer refillable products at a discount that would not only save the public / consumers money, but would also solve part of problems of the waste crisis in a more long-term way.

Daily fresh foods were shut down on Wednesday the 15th of August, they are mainly a meat and fresh produce market means that a lot of perfectly good food is going to waste as all access to the premises has been denied indefinitely. This is happening all over London and there is a disturbing amount of food being wasted and I feel that this waste of completely avoidable.

People are trapped in their own homes because of the water rising. It has got to point that people can’t even have food to eat, kids have been starving for the whole day, because the waters are to high to get food. Many people have even lost their homes because of the water eroding the foundations away from the walls. Many people are missing because of the flooding and rock slides. The water has reached up to the second level of the house and people are left with inches away from death, left with no hope.

The Rossmere Park Island has the only breeding colony of Egrets in the whole county. If these birds move on because of the disturbance on the Island they will not come back. Not only do these trees add to the character of the park, they form a vital part of the local ecology for the Park’s large Bat colony.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide on the market. Herbicides containing glyphosate are sold under a variety of names, and are made by a large number of different manufacturers, but the most well known is RoundUp, made by Monsanto. Gardeners and farmers choose to use glyphosate herbicides because they are both very effective, and have a very low toxicity to people and animals. Despite the fact that there is very clear scientific evidence that herbicides containing glyphosate are safe, and don't cause cancer (see sources at the bottom), and even though multiple well-respected international scientific bodies have examined all of the evidence and also concluded there is no link between glyphosate and cancer, a jury in California decided that a man's cancer was caused by it. As a result companies like B&Q and Homebase are considering removing glyphosate herbicides from their shelves. Waitrose is already doing it. If glyphosate herbicides are taken away, gardeners and farmers will have no alternative but to switch to other, more toxic herbicides, like pyraflufen ethyl (2x more toxic than glyphosate), dicamba (about 6 times more toxic than glyphosate), or diquat (almost 40 times more toxic than glyphosate). As a gardener, I use glyphosate for weed control, particularly invasive, difficult to get rid of ones like Ground Elder and Bindweed. Farmers are increasingly using it as part of no-till farming, to avoid having to break up soil which leads to soil degradation and erosion. Why should my health and well-being, and the safety of my family be put at risk by knee-jerk responses to a poorly made judgement in a foreign court? Gardeners and farmers should be allowed to decide for ourselves if we want to continue to use RoundUp and other glyphosate herbicides, rather than having it imposed on us. Courts are not good places to determine scientific issues. Juries can be swayed by emotions (a dying man vs a large faceless, not particularly trusted corporation), and because juries don’t generally consist of scientific experts, and therefore, like the rest of us, they aren't in a position to properly evaluate scientific evidence, particularly in a courtroom where they're under pressure to try and decide between 2 competing stories. So when the science says glyphosate is safe, I believe companies should trust the science, rather than relying on a single flawed court case that is being appealed. Sources: - Andreotti et al. 2017. A large, long-term cohort study with over 50,000 participants that wasn’t funded by Monsanto, which failed to find an association between glyphosate use and cancer among farmers. - Mink et al. 2012. A meta-analysis of 21 cohort and case-controlled studies in humans concluded that there is "no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate". - Regulatory oversight agencies in the US, Europe and elsewhere in the world, including the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (acting on behalf of European Commission and European Food Safety Authority), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization Core Assessment Group, the European Union, the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety, the EPA, and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority have all reviewed the over 800 studies on glyphosate (many of which are independent) and concluded there is no link between glyphosate and cancer. (Declaration of interest: I have never worked for or receive any money from Monsanto or any other chemical or agricultural company.)

Trump wants to build 500 “luxury” houses on a protected Aberdeenshire coast. These homes will be unaffordable to anyone except the rich, featuring villas planned to sell for over £1 million. No plans for affordable houses, which were promised as part of the planning permission, have been made public. They do not appear in the proposed development brochure. This location is entirely inappropriate for a housing scheme; it’s far from amenities and is opposed by people living nearby. Planning permission for the golf resort was issued on the basis that the “economic benefit outweighed the environmental harm”. But the rare protected dunes that form part of the estate have been “partially destroyed” since Trump began construction on the resort, and there’s been little benefit to the community. Trump cannot be trusted to deliver on his promises for this resort, and this new development will further damage the beautiful North Sea coastline whilst lining his own pockets. What’s more, we’re signing Scotland away to a man who deals in lies and hate, which will damage the country’s reputation.